They are like white guys telling black jokes, then saying it is OK because they are friends with black people. Unless you have personally been a victim of the church, or had a loved one victimized by it, then it is really easy to cross the line between laughing with us at the church, and laughing at us for having been dumb enough to ever be a part of such a thing.

I also just hate being told how irrational my thought patterns used to be, by someone who still has irrational thought patterns.

And -100 to those who fail to see the irony of one laughing at Mormons while belonging to your own X-ian religious cult.

Christian fundamentalists are still part of the Christian tradition in spite of being a little crazy.

Mormons popped up very lately out of the blue and claimed to be unique and peculiar. That's right. I agree with those who laugh about them being peculiar.

I'm proud to be someone with the sense to realize it while I was inside and see it with more clarity from the outside.

Those who make fun of mormonism aren't likely including us in their jokes, and if they are, no harm done.

The nevermo evangelical trolls on this board are not JUST like white guys telling jokes aboiut blacks.

They are the white guys who then ask why Chris Rock can use the "N" word in his show but white people can't. Because, as a white guy, they are just DYING to use the "N" word and have someone tell them it's okay.

That would be like coming to a reunion of my dad's family and hearing everyone jokingly call one another "lazy drunken halfbreeds". WE can do it, but if you - an outsider - come along and do the same thing.... don't expect to leave uninjured.

And if you need anyone to explain to you WHY that's the way it is, then you just don't get it, and probably never will.

When I was having doubts, and was trying to discover the truth, I did not bother with websites of people who had never been in the morg.

I came to places such as this, and listened to the ex-mos, because no one else would ever truly get it and might have some fake agenda.

I don't listen to the opinions of christians (as regards the morg) nor do I listen to the morg.

Not trying to bash christians in general, though I'm sure it sounds like it, but the ones who make up crap about the morg when there's already enough true crap out there.

Susan

Or do you just consider that anything from the theological standpoint of a Christian is "made up"?

Satanic rituals in the temple

Mormons worshiping the "wrong jesus"

These are two nonsensical lies created by evengelical x-ians to try to make their beliefs seem less batshit crazy.

First demonstrate that such a being as satan exists. Then demonstrate how temple rituals have anything to do with him.

Second, demonstrate that jesus exists. Then we can all ask him who worships him correctly.

In the meantime...it's all made up.

Well, I'm not a member of the 'Mormons worship Satan in the temple ' crowd. But this does not mean that one cannot build a convincing argument. Does the Devil actually have to exist to prove any particular group of people either worship him or don't? Furthermore, from a Christian standpoint, if one is not worshipping the true God then one IS worshipping Satan. Additionally there are certain pagan forms or symbols that are were part of the ceremony so accusing these people as making things up is a bit over-done.

But there is Christian orthodoxy and Biblical theology. Mormonism doesn't fit these...it doesn't fit historical Christianity. That is not made up.

Of course, you don't care about any of that...you just hate anything that has to do with Christianity so you will say it's all balogna.

The Fundies want to convert people on the rebound, and if you won't come along, they mock you. I remember a pastor mocking the Hari Krishnas; he said that the Krishnas hoped to be pulled to heaven by their pigtails (!)....yes that idiot confused Hari Krishnas with Manchus.

They do try to catch you on the rebound...except the Catholics. When I went to adult catechism, the priest @ the church told me flatly "the catholic faith doesn't want to be your band-aid" and it took me 4 years to disregard all of that Mormon theology, and finally get baptized catholic.
Dang Catholics & their education! :P they wanted me to be all prepared & actually understand! LOL

That's cool that you spent 4 years studying catholicism and now you understand. So can you answer some catholic questions for me that no one else has been able to answer?

1. Did Jesus always exist or was he created by the father at some point?

2. Same for the holy ghost.

3. Do the father, son, and holy ghost have independent thoughts? Or is it really one person simply experiencing 3 points of view at the same time?

4. If they each have independent thoughts, can the others read their thoughts?

5. If it's just one person experiencing 3 points of view, what's the point of that? Why 3? Why not 5, or 7?

6. If they're all one god, then there's really no son/father dynamic. So why did the catholic god sacrifice himself to himself? And why did he pretend he was sacrificing something other than himself?

7. And if jesus is still alive, and he's all well & good, what exactly was the sacrifice?

Thanks for sharing your learning with me. :)

Let me preface by saying that all that I know isn't all that there is to know...you know?

Ok, the jist of the whole operation is this:
*God is a spiritual being. There is no need for God to have a body, in that he has no need to procreate.
*when Adam & Eve fell to sin, they basically caused a rift between man & god. Since then, man & god have been trying to bring things back to that place where God & man could live in communion with eachother.
*people are kind of proud & douchy when it comes to God's authority, so they were never upholding God's pretty simple instructions. Instead, they spent a lot of time making up their own rules & regulations & driving everyone nuts with all of these extra rules. (certain clothing, certain styles of clothing, what time to pray, etc.)
*God is love, and was kind of tired of trying to get man to make a perfect sacrifice & be good people.
*God decides "F*ck it, i'll do it myself!" And so he sets up the lineage of Jesus, & creates the Christ child, imbued with his spirit (thus Christ's dual nature), corrects all the stupid legalism of the über-douchy pharisees & declares that being wealthy, particularly on the backs of the poor, is going to make it basically impossible to get into heaven. (the pharisees were bilking money for sins, ala the reformation, as well as keeping offerings meant for the poor.)
*when he feels confident that he's done what no man could do; faced temptation, faced grief & loss, etc. And corrected the made-up beliefs (including eternal marriage) he is ready to be crucified. He goes through all hell & high water & is finally crucified.
*he goes into the afterlife, wherever that is to lead all souls to heaven.
*he is resurrected, shows his scarred body to his followers & schools the apostles on how they need to handle things from here on out. he leaves them, and all followers, the holy spirit so that they can feel God with them.
*he ascends into heaven, and is just kind of hanging out, waiting to get the party started.
* only the Father aspect of the trinity knows when the last day will be, so I assume that He can withhold information, but since the Father aspect is the origin of the Son and Holy Spirit aspect, I think He, the Father, can know all things about them.

Sorry, my phone decided that was enough writing.
So, with all of that preface,
-yes, because of the dual nature of Christ, he was always & will always be. Same for the holy spirit.
-3 because 3 is what was needed. God the Father who created all things, God the son who became man in order to be the perfect & ultimate sacrifice, and God the holy spirit, to be always available to guide us towards good.
-he didn't sacrifice himself for himself, he sacrificed himself for all mankind. He became a man to be the man who would willingly sacrifice himself, thinking only of others.
-the father/son dynamic comes in because Christ, while having the spiritual substance of God, was still also a man and therefore still a child of God. (As far as why God chose for us to address Him as 'him' & 'father', I think, is so that we have a clearer understanding of his relationship towards us...why not her & mother? Who knows? Ask Him when you see Him.)
-the point of the sacrifice was to restore God's relationship to mankind, as He meant for it to be, before man screwed it all up.
Again, this is my personal understanding of the trinity, but the triune nature of God, as well as exactly what the substance of God is, is a mystery.

Yeah, when you can't make sense of something, just call it a mystery, something we'll understand in the sweet bye and bye, through a glass darkly kind of thing, just have patience and keep on paying those tithes.

If Jesus is God, he knew he would be resurrected

so how is that "death"--isn't it really just suffering pain temporarily, like childbirth? Suffering pain temporarily through torture was punishment for wrongdoing (see Eve). Since Jesus was perfect, his wrongdoing was our sins, right?

So why do we need to go to confession--aren't we covered?

They say he "conquered death" by not dying at all, really.

Which means all the people who lived before Jesus lived during unconquered-death time. Millions of innocent people. Are they in Limbo? Are they the ones Jesus visited in "hell?" after he "died?"

And if not, where are they?

Sorry if this is annoying, but if you do know, in all sincerity, please share.

Thanks

Anagrammy

Those are good questions, exactly the sort of stuff that theology is about. I am not Catholic (yet) but I have read a bit of theology on my way out of Mormonism. Here's how I understand it.

1 & 2. God has always existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A major point of the council of Nicaea in the 4th century was to insist that Jesus was not a creature who at some point in the past was brought into being by the Father. Rather, the Son is said to be "eternally begotten" of the Father. That is, the Father always causes the Son to exist. Same for the Holy Spirit, except the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father (and the Son if your catholic) instead of being begotten, whatever that distinction is supposed to mean.

3&4. They are considered to be distinct persons which must imply that they have some kind of distinct identity. How exactly that compares to our human sense of independent identity I don't know. However the communion that exists between the persons of the Trinity is supposed to be far more intimate than any human analogy can adequately convey. Unity without losing personhood, distinction without separation. So in Christianity, unlike Judaism or Islam, relationship is thought to be a fundamental aspect of God - the God is love thing. And that same sort of communion with God and with fellow human beings is supposed to await us as well in heaven. Oneness without the loss of personal identity. If you want a really heavy read on this sort of thinking you could try the book The Beauty of the Infinite.

5. They are not considered to be one person. They are three persons who each equally have the one divine essence/substance. A distinction is made between person and essence. Why 3 persons and not 2 or 5 or 1000? The only argument I've seen along these lines is something like to love requires an other, so if God is love God must be at least 2 persons - Father and Son. Furthermore, love wants create more love so the Father with the Son cause the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is directly referred to as the actualization of the love between the Father and the Son. Then there is some kind of argument that 3 divine persons are sufficient for love to be fully expressed and so there are only three divine persons. The divine Trinity then extend their love in the creation of non-divine entities like the universe and ourselves. Ultimately we are called to share in God's own eternal exchange of love.

6. There is a real dynamic between the distinct persons in the Trinity. They are one God in terms of having the same divine essence but are three persons. Jesus wasn't talking to himself when he prayed. Jesus offered up his life to his father not to himself. And it was the human life he lived that he offered up for us as one of us. Its not so much about appeasing divine justice, its about uniting the divine with the human. Its about God becoming one us to live for all of us the life we are called to, a life of love.

7. In terms of Jesus' human nature, which was wholly real, body and soul, it was a real sacrifice. It was costly. It hurt. The human side of Jesus seemed to be afraid and feel forsaken. His sacrifice was as authentic as any sacrifices for another that we may make in our own lives. Just because the story may have a happy ending doesn't have to take away from the drama of the moment. Or you could take Rene Girard's view that what the cross really showed was the falsity of all of our primeval notions about sacrifice, appeasement, and fate.

I just don't get the mind-set.

"If they were dumb enough to fall for mormonism, they're probably dumb enough to fall for my fairy tale!"

I don't think so.

I also don't get the "mormons aren't christians" and "mormon god is not christian god" and "mormon JuHEEsus isn't christian JuHEEsus" nonsense.

In my mind they're all fairy tales so what difference does it make?

Timothy

+1

However...the synopsis given above by the person who was explaining 'Catholic' beliefs, actually just laid out the basic tenets of protestants as well.

But not Mormons....

unintentionally but fairly comprehensively answering why Christians don't consider Mormons Christians.

different god, different jesus, different gospel

not christian

So what's the difference?

We're not talking rocket science, notmo.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 08:38PM by Timothy.

and Mormonism?

For that is the context I am speaking of..the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

If by that, you mean that you don't see a difference between them because you think it all to be a fairy tale..I really don't care. I am addressing the issue in the context of why Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian.

Your opinion in the 'fairy tale' context is irrelevant in this context.

+100...true, notmo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 09:28PM by honestone.

+100...true, notmo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 09:27PM by honestone.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 09:30PM by honestone.

This reminded me of why Martin Luther was excommunicated from the catholic church. After the reformation, the church still viewed him as a member. It wasn't until Martin Luther ok'd a plural marriage that he was cut off.
In fairness, he definitely had some good points about how the Roman Catholics were doing things.

It makes a big difference. As long as they are at each others' throats fighter over who gets to be in whose fairy tale, they are out of everyone else's hair a bit.

I love seeing these two groups eat each other alive. Both groups like to call me an immoral, un-American, troop hating, socialist - so I enjoy seeing these two groups attack each other's morality.

The less consolidation amongst these freaks, the better.

I think they are just a tad suspicious of your intentions. They are very accepting of you, but just a bit leary when you tell them you were Mormon. It takes some time, but eventually you will be accepted.

It's a mo-mo thang!

forbiddencokedrinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...it is really easy to cross the line between laughing with us at the church, and laughing at us for having been dumb enough to ever be a part of such a thing.

I don't feel that way at all about exmos and those who are questioning the church. When you grow up within a system (or join with incomplete information, as often happens,) then that system becomes your reality. I think it takes tremendous courage to walk away from it, especially since Mormonism is so controlling. I especially sympathize with exmo women since I know just how hard it is to build your self-esteem and to try to make it in a male-dominated world.

The Mormon religion presents an attractive image to the world at large. But having read this board for several years now, I can see the damage that it does, and just how much the church hides. I'm on your side, all of you, and I don't much care how you spend your Sundays (hopefully those Sundays are spent in a way that pleases you. :-)

I watched a good friend get sucked into the cult; I watched a Jackmo boyfriend disintigrate before my eyes due to major cog dis. I came here because I wanted to understand. Along the way, you've all taught me a lot.

What about those of us who are not trolls, are nevermos and have siginificant ties to the Morg?

I spent 2 yeas at BYU as a nevermo (a couple of years prior to that reading everything "Mormon" I could get my hands on so that I was fairly well indoctrinated by the time I got to BYU. I married an RM and spent the next 10 years of my life living in a small Mormon town with sixty-million TBM in-laws-all as a nevermo. Shortly after marriage (all the while being pressured into joining 'the one true church') I found out why Christianity was completely incompatible with Mormonism and re-dedicated myself to my Christian faith. A few years later my TBM RM multi-generational died in the wool UT husband became a Christian.

On a prior thread you wrote, "Or given your evangelical connections, and the fact that you have never been a Mormon, she is probably trying to use your niavete in order to get some speaking fees from your church. Let me guess, she needs money, and is willing to make a public statement for a little help with her rent."

To which I replied,"BTW...Mr. ForbiddenCokeDrinker...what is your problem with my religious beliefs? Get a life."

You never responded. Your comment nothing more than a snide remark made because you obviously can't stand anyone who believes in god. So what makes you think you have more rights than an evangelical on this board AND...are you sure you are rightly calling these 'evangelicals' you are referencing "trolls"?

nothing to do with the thread.

... that your god exists?

I would very much like to see that evidence.

Please share.

Or shut-up.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 08:47PM by Timothy.

You are a rude little bugger aren't you? Do you act like that in public or only on internet forums?

...about the facts behind your beliefs.

I'll save us all some time. You will have to resort to faith which is exactly the same tool Mormons use. There is usually a very high standard for evidence for claims here.

What we often hear are believers in Snow White claiming belief in Cinderella is flawed. Maybe a pumpkin won't change into a carriage but if you look at your own beliefs, there is no magic mirror either.

So, the religions only vary in degree but they are all based on belief or faith. This is why believers who criticize Mormons often look hypocritical. Apply standards consistently.

It's easy to assault religions beliefs because they are "based on belief or faith." To apply standards consistently, you wouldn't only require proof with respect to religions beliefs, but to all beliefs, ideas, perceptions, notions, thoughts . . . .

Some have figured out religion is often a scam, and they are rough on those involved in religion. But, they could likely be just as rough on themselves for other ideas that they hold that when pursued to their logical end, don't have a logical end.

So, I go back to relativity. All untrue things are not equally destructive. And, if a person is somewhat insightful and honest, I think they'd have to conclude that they hold and act on many beliefs that they cannot prove to be true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 09:15PM by thingsithink.

We all have all kind of beliefs. They are not all religious of course.

Once I identify a belief I have that has a low standard of evidence, I qualify it as non fact and keep looking for evidence. I change my mind often according to what the evidence will actually support. I will continue to utilize my tools for sound evidence to everything, be it science or religion.

That said, notice the lack of need for evidence among religionists. Nuff said.

"Once I identify a belief I have that has a low standard of evidence, I qualify it as non fact and keep looking for evidence."


That's backwards, respectfully. You have to have the evidence first. Then form the belief. Right?

But, I try to do the same as you. It's identifying those beliefs that lack evidence that take an endless amount of effort.

The evidence should form the conclusion.

However we are talking about beliefs. Every so often I realize I hold a belief (a conclusion) and have no evidence. So, the belief basically gets questioned....and usually ditched.

It's very hard to go through life with zero preconceived conclusions. The trick is acknowledging them when you discover them and do your homework to determine if they are worth keeping. Religion overwhelmingly does not hold up to the test.

Yes, you are absolutely correct! It does all come down to faith.
While we are all in agreement that the LDS church is false, some of us don't believe in god at all, and some of believe in Christ in the bible, which we feel the LDS co-opted for their own gain. Some of us just aren't willing to believe in something unless it can be empirically proven, and that's fine.
None of those of us who believe in god can produce scientific evidence to prove our belief. However, it is disrespectful of those who don't believe in god to be antagonistic towards those who do, and vice-versa.
Not be a sanctimonious ass, but those of us who proclaim to be followers of Christ do need to try to show that & be kind towards all people...just mho.

Correct happyhh!!! Thanks for your kind words and surely it should be taken as a person who accepts all ways of belief or unbelief. If one wants to go debate this is not the forum, or did I miss something.

It is not disrespectful to call out unfounded claims. Respect is earned by quality of argument and evidence.

Religion tends to teach that it should be "respected" when it has done nothing to earn that respect. By their same standards, we should "respect" any whimsical claim? No. All claims are not equal in credibility.

Beliefs that require protection of "respect" and sacredness don't cut it. Imagine going to a scientific convention and "respecting" completely unfounded claims as if they warranted respect like the claims with evidence. Wouldn't happen. I'm just saying that religion should be treated the way we would treat any other subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 09:31PM by dagny.

So, by that logic, I should not respect scientific theory of neutrinos because scientists can't show them to me? Should I also ridicule & doubt the highs boson because I can't see it? But the fact that it remains theoretical and unproven doesn't stop THE ENTIRE scientific community from jumping up & down about it, now does it? Even science requires faith.

Pardon my auto-correct...Higgs boson. Ie the 'god particle' that some reputable scientists theorized was left on our planet by aliens...just saying.

Wrong. There is plenty of auxilliary evidence for neutrinos and such things. Science doesn't accept them blindly. There are other things affected by neutrinos that allow science to prove their existence. It's not belief.

Your argument is Bullshit, with a capitol B.

And no reputable scientist would ever argue there is evidence for aliens. They may say it's possible, but they're not going to say they exist w/o proof. That's the definition of science, proof.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 09:47PM by lostinutah.

You win.

You're wrong. Science isn't proof. It's an educated explanation that may later be proven wrong or improved upon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 09:57PM by thingsithink.

Science tends to clarify itself and self correct over time. The conclusions must change to accommodate any new evidence. Sometimes it means going back to square one.

It's not perfect but has the best track record for giving us a method to best align our knowledge with what actually exists.

Except I disagree with one thing. Science can provide adequate proof and often does.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 10:29PM by dagny.

Wasn't this thread about evangelicals Trolling for recruits? Or to poke fun at ex-mos?